EDITORIAL: Threaten a judge, go to jail

The case of an online threat made against Northampton County Judge Michael Koury has taken a new twist — one that raises as many questions as it answers. Whereas the initial issue was Koury’s in-court confrontation of a lawyer he thought might be connected to the threat — it turned out the attorney wasn’t, and Koury later apologized — the larger issue is this:

If someone makes a threat of violence against a judge and it is deemed credible and prosecutable, shouldn’t that person be held accountable? Does it make a difference that the threat was made online, where the First Amendment seems to enjoy an almost limitless elasticity?

On Monday, District Attorney John Morganelli ruled that the online post by George Charles of Allentown did rise to the level of a terroristic threat. Charles had written, on the website of the Allentown Morning Call, that Koury “needs to get clipped one night outside the courthouse.”

However, Morganelli said he won’t prosecute because Koury preferred not to press the charge. So in one sense, this has been investigated and resolved outside of court — and there’s always something to be said for that. It counts for something, too, that Charles apologized publicly and privately for his online barbs.

But still: Someone threatened a judge in a way that suggested violence. If that creates reasonable suspicion of a crime — Morganelli says it does, based on the evidence — that person should have to answer in court.

In another recent case, Warren County officials last week brought charges against a Sussex County man, based on a Facebook threat against a New Jersey Superior Court judge who presides over family court. Jesse D. Harvey, 24, of the 400 block of River Styx Road in Hopatcong, is accused of posting that he would kill the judge and “use her blood to paint an upside-down cross on her forehead.”

Two cases, two different decisions.

Judges and prosecutors in each county say they take such threats seriously, and that’s the only appropriate course of action. While online blogs and social media have opened a vast forum for public expression that just a decade ago seemed unimaginable, it also has lowered the level of discourse in many cases and fostered an “anything goes” threshold for speech.

That threshold is now being tested.

Certainly the actions of judges are not immune from public criticism (with exceptions inside the courtroom and within some legal constraints), but a threat is a threat, and judges are among elected and appointed officials who, because of their positions, are entitled to a high level of personal protection. (Readers of this newspaper may recall that when a letter-writer from Bethlehem used the words “shotgun” and “President Bush” in the same paragraph a few years ago, he received a visit from the Secret Service.)

Those who express opinions online must realize they are speaking and writing publicly — and act accordingly. That isn’t a damper on expression, just a reminder that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.